I believe many of those things about putin , he is KGB thru and thru, and I believe he would love to see a return to that ( and trust me , to many of my" Kin" would be flat out waring with Trump if we thought he would throw out our Republic) . I am trying to find some common ground . you do know that article came from Fox news ( or as some say " faux news " ), But it seemed to be close to were you are . From were I stand it looks like you might have a tainted view of fox. I am not saying you agree with anymore , this might be the only one , but maybe , just maybe , you could give credit to an article rather than the name someone else might be slandering

Recently I have started watching all the major US news channels, including Fox. One of the major advantages with having free press is that you can (and should) do a reality check "on the other side".

I can't say Fox is a favorite of mine though. They seem to devote quite some time to critiquing coverage of their competitors. I also find their analyses to be slightly less objective and more focused on personalities.

Yup Your analysis of FOX is what most Journalists and Journalistic Scholars say as well. It's mostly punditry, and is so heavily biased that it's not really a valid source of "news". As I mentioned in a previous post, it was the brain child of billionaire rupert murdhoch to create a purely right wing news outlet and save money by doing mostly punditry and panels instead of having paid correspondents all over the world actually breaking stories.

I watch FOX as well as the other major outlets. I find that watching a bit of all of them gives you a better perspective. Most folks however, just watch the stuff the reinforces what they already "feel".

I did want to point out that the first draft of the new budget proposal seeks to pull money from after school programs, and meals on wheels and other programs that help feed the elderly and poor. The very folks (the left behind) that Trump swore to protect, are the very folks that will suffer when the budget is slashed in order to give billions more to the military to buy more Nuclear subs to Fight Muslims in the desert. Yup. Isis and Al Qaeda dont' have an air force, nor a Navy, yet we are going to take food from the poor to buy more subs and pricey air craft. Seems just insane.

QUOTE (Kristofer Dahl @ Mar 20 2017, 04:44 PM)

Recently I have started watching all the major US news channels, including Fox. One of the major advantages with having free press is that you can (and should) do a reality check "on the other side".

I can't say Fox is a favorite of mine though. They seem to devote quite some time to critiquing coverage of their competitors. I also find their analyses to be slightly less objective and more focused on personalities.

I did want to point out that the first draft of the new budget proposal seeks to pull money from after school programs, and meals on wheels and other programs that help feed the elderly and poor. The very folks (the left behind) that Trump swore to protect, are the very folks that will suffer when the budget is slashed in order to give billions more to the military to buy more Nuclear subs to Fight Muslims in the desert. Yup. Isis and Al Qaeda dont' have an air force, nor a Navy, yet we are going to take food from the poor to buy more subs and pricey air craft. Seems just insane.

Yes that budget proposal is nothing short of horrific from start to finish If such a proposal was brought up here, I think/hope it would instantly cause massive and nation wide protests.

More exaggerated drama. That vast majority of funding for the program comes from private donors. I make donations to them myself a few times a year. They receive only a fraction of what they take in from federal dollars. Any void left by removing taxpayer funding will be quickly filled by donations as evidenced by the recent surge of donations to the program since the announcement of the budget proposal. Americans are the most generous in the world when it comes to charity and this program isn't going anywhere because of that.

If the program can stand on it's own without taxpayer funding, then why shouldn't it? We don't need to be forced to fund it and forcing taxpayers to pay for charities that Gov chooses may likely be doing more harm than good when it comes to other charities that are not federally funded. We are perfectly capable of determining which charities we want to donate to and Gov has no business telling us which charities we must donate to.Charitable donations are tax deductible which helps to create an incentive for folks to donate. Forcing people to donate thru taxation creates the idea of charities not needing donations because the Gov is supposed to have it covered and folks then have less money to donate to the charities of their choice.Lower taxes = more charitable donations.

He could be talking about the endownment for the arts or public broadcasting. Really any program that also takes private donor funds. I can't agree with his statement, per usual, that private money will cover the missing federal dollars. I agree with Kris here, shocker, that the budget is horrific. Peeling the 1% of the budget allocated to programs like the endowment for the arts while making tax payers from 3 MILLION DOLLARS per weekend, every weekend, when he takes his entourage to MARO LAGO. Now that is flat out criminal IMHO. All the while, trimming the pennies of each dollar that go for programs that help the sick and the aged and the poor. Frankly, he should be ashamed of himself.

Doing this to fatten up the military just makes it that much worse. We already spend more than the next several top nations combined. Also, buying more submarines and stealth jets wont help fight terrorism, homegrown or otherwise. It's just more money for fat cats and contractors, par for the course with republican presidents sadly.

TRUTH IS, until regular trump voters get kicked off their health care, and see their taxes go up, along with all the other bad things that are headed for the middle/lower middle class if this budget passes, not until then will we see any change in Trump Fan Club. Most of his following (present company excluded of course) are just voting with their heart. The brain is not part of it IMHO. He says things that resonate with frustrated white folks who feel left behind by globalism and who simply don't want the change that is happening in America. We are becoming more "brown" as a county simply due to demographic shifts. The Baby Boomers are losing their grip on power and they are not going down without a fight. Til they all die off, more of the same is on deck.

Of course there are exceptions to every rule. My father is a boomer that sees trump for what he is. Sadly, most boomers are trumpers.

More exaggerated drama. That vast majority of funding for the program comes from private donors. I make donations to them myself a few times a year. They receive only a fraction of what they take in from federal dollars. Any void left by removing taxpayer funding will be quickly filled by donations as evidenced by the recent surge of donations to the program since the announcement of the budget proposal. Americans are the most generous in the world when it comes to charity and this program isn't going anywhere because of that.

If the program can stand on it's own without taxpayer funding, then why shouldn't it? We don't need to be forced to fund it and forcing taxpayers to pay for charities that Gov chooses may likely be doing more harm than good when it comes to other charities that are not federally funded. We are perfectly capable of determining which charities we want to donate to and Gov has no business telling us which charities we must donate to.Charitable donations are tax deductible which helps to create an incentive for folks to donate. Forcing people to donate thru taxation creates the idea of charities not needing donations because the Gov is supposed to have it covered and folks then have less money to donate to the charities of their choice.Lower taxes = more charitable donations.

Then it seems you are sitting on info not widely available - because from what I gather the funding for this program is complex as it's a network of thousands of independently run groups that receive varying amounts of government aid – or none at all.

However we do know the biggest source of federal funding for Meals on Wheels programs comes from the Older Americans Act Nutrition Program, which is run by the Department Of Health and Human Services.

Trump has proposed slashing the Health and Human Services budget by nearly 18 percent, though the exact details of those cuts have not been released.

So it does seem this could have a big impact on old people's ability to survive (as you know food is mandatory). Feel free to clarify your standpoint.

Kris, I believe I was perfectly clear. If you have some info that disputes what I have posted then I am sure you will let me know. I imagine we are looking at the same reports, none of which indicates that the funding provided by taxpayer dollars is any more than a small fraction of the total of all funding provided. The vast majority of which is from donations. And the recent surge of donations has been widely reported.Furthermore, none of this is written in stone. The budget proposal is just that, a proposal, and is likely to be amended before it is finalized.

Donations always surge when the threat of a cut is proposed.The sustainability of the public funding is tough as those programs will now have to spend more money and time on 'fundraising activities' and less on actually helping people. The amount of money that the govt. gives to the arts and food for the hungry is fucking minuscule. The NEA gets on average about $146 million per year (.012 of the fed 'discretionary' budget). That's about $1.07 a year on your personal fed tax bill (based on approx 136 mil people filing fed tax). Fed food programs (SNAP) cost us all maybe $36.00 on our fed return. Most of that, 83%, goes to kids, retirees and disabled folks ... and there already is a work requirement (18 to 59 yr old's in good health - since Clinton in '96).

AK RICH: I think you missed this part from kris's response which states the bulks of the funds come from the govt, not from charity support. " biggest source of federal funding for Meals on Wheels programs comes from the Older Americans Act Nutrition Program, which is run by the Department Of Health and Human Services. "

As far as I'm aware, Kris is on point. The Dept of Health and Human services (tax money) is the bulk of their funding. Where are you getting information suggesting that donors are the bulk of their funding? This seems to be where you are talking past each other.

I"m just glad that horrible, anti health bill didn't pass. Even the AARP came out against it. But at least Trump can say he at least tried so he is in keeping with his promises. Now they are going to let Obama Care "Explode". Now that is some serious exaggeration.

QUOTE (AK Rich @ Mar 24 2017, 11:29 AM)

Kris, I believe I was perfectly clear. If you have some info that disputes what I have posted then I am sure you will let me know. I imagine we are looking at the same reports, none of which indicates that the funding provided by taxpayer dollars is any more than a small fraction of the total of all funding provided. The vast majority of which is from donations. And the recent surge of donations has been widely reported.Furthermore, none of this is written in stone. The budget proposal is just that, a proposal, and is likely to be amended before it is finalized.

This is the part that they don't talk about on FOX news. These programs are a miniscule slice of discretionary spending. After the Military and Social Security type programs, about 20 percent of our budget is all that is left and little slices go to help the aged and the poor. To take away from these programs to expand the military is IMHO beyond the pale. But hey, that's just me Obviously I didn't vote for Trump. Many trump voters seem to think it's fine to slash programs for the needy to give tax breaks to rich and more money to the military to submarines and stealth jets to fight a bunch of guys with ak47s and light trucks in the desert.

The good news for the American people is that Trump won't touch a "loser" and health care is a loser. Even with both houses of congress, he can't push through the war crime he called a health care bill.

QUOTE (klasaine @ Mar 24 2017, 12:05 PM)

Donations always surge when the threat of a cut is proposed.The sustainability of the public funding is tough as those programs will now have to spend more money and time on 'fundraising activities' and less on actually helping people. The amount of money that the govt. gives to the arts and food for the hungry is fucking minuscule. The NEA gets on average about $146 million per year (.012 of the fed 'discretionary' budget). That's about $1.07 a year on your personal fed tax bill (approx 136 mil file fed tax). Fed food programs (SNAP) cost us all maybe 4 bucks on our fed return. Most of that (about 83%) goes to kids, retirees and disabled folks and there already is a work requirement (there has been once since Clinton).

Also, I would like to add Environmental Protection to the list - who the hell needs that?? If we skip that, the planet will soon boil and we can all have free tea, I don't see any problems with that.

This will also solve food problems: anyone knows old people can survive weeks on just water while they wait for private donors - and there will soon be plenty of (sea) water for everyone to enjoy thanks to arctic ice melting.

AK RICH: I think you missed this part from kris's response which states the bulks of the funds come from the govt, not from charity support. " biggest source of federal funding for Meals on Wheels programs comes from the Older Americans Act Nutrition Program, which is run by the Department Of Health and Human Services. "

As far as I'm aware, Kris is on point. The Dept of Health and Human services (tax money) is the bulk of their funding. Where are you getting information suggesting that donors are the bulk of their funding? This seems to be where you are talking past each other.

I"m just glad that horrible, anti health bill didn't pass. Even the AARP came out against it. But at least Trump can say he at least tried so he is in keeping with his promises. Now they are going to let Obama Care "Explode". Now that is some serious exaggeration.

This is the part that they don't talk about on FOX news. These programs are a miniscule slice of discretionary spending. After the Military and Social Security type programs, about 20 percent of our budget is all that is left and little slices go to help the aged and the poor. To take away from these programs to expand the military is IMHO beyond the pale. But hey, that's just me Obviously I didn't vote for Trump. Many trump voters seem to think it's fine to slash programs for the needy to give tax breaks to rich and more money to the military to submarines and stealth jets to fight a bunch of guys with ak47s and light trucks in the desert.

The good news for the American people is that Trump won't touch a "loser" and health care is a loser. Even with both houses of congress, he can't push through the war crime he called a health care bill.

That would be incorrect. The majority of Federal funding may come from HHS but not the majority of their total funding. Where are you getting your info? It's simply not so. And at this point there have been no cuts announced for the OAA itself as far as I can tell.

It was obvious to me the health care bill was going nowhere. I didn't support it either, but for reasons that differ from yours I am sure.

A war crime called a health care bill? Good grief man, exaggerate much for dramatic effect? I didn't like it either but I don't recall anyone having characterized it as a war crime, other than you. But I wouldn't be surprised I guess if that little gem is being past around among the far left.

I don't donate to political parties, only to charities. Maybe if more folks would do that these problems could be solved. Also, maybe we should cut off a big chunk of foreign aid and redirect that into helping the impoverished in our own country.

Anyway, I am looking at it like this. Nothing in the budget proposal is finalized to the best of my knowledge and the exact amounts of cuts, where they are coming from, and the impact it may have are still unknown and has been reported as such. You guys have stated what you think it could mean and so have I. When I see what the facts are concerning this issue and a host of other issues such as Russian collusion etc that so far are just speculation, then I will worry about it. Until then I am not going to have a big reaction to anything other than real evidence or facts.

The basic divide seems to be that myself and kris and Ken seem to think it's just not right to cut out what's left of the budget, after military spending and social security/etc. and slice it up even further and give it to the Pentagon. The bits that are being slices off are very small portions of the budget. Then again, that's what voting is for. After all, the folks in power and in both houses of congress have the ability to destroy all discretionary programs by defunding them and give all the money the pentagon. I think this is beyond the pale in terms of simple morality. Those programs are a miniscule slice of the budget and they go to help those who need it the most. I think we should take a HUGE slice out of the military budget personally. We overspend on the military by billions. The Military Industrial Complex has become a monster that sucks up about half of every tax dollar. To make it worse, the people we are fighting have no NAVY, no AIR FORCE, just guys with guns in light trucks and whatever they can steal from what we left behind. Spending billions on stealth jets and anti submarine warfare seems ludicrous. But again, just to me. Maybe you and others thing we need massive expansion of the military and to do away with social programs for the poor, disabled and aged. I think you would change your mind if you found yourself poor, disabled, an or aged.

As for the funding for Meals on Wheels, they get most of their state money from Community development block grants, a $3 billion program that started in the Ford administration to give states and cities more flexibility in how they combat poverty. If this get's cut, many programs that depend on it would simply go away. These are state level monies.

However, Meals on Wheels programs get most of their federal funding through the Administration for Community Living, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services that serves the elderly and disabled. That agency has a $227 million line-item for "home-delivered nutrition services." This represents the bulk of their federal funding.

Those programs are authorized though the Older Americans Act,

Still, they get the overall bulk of their funding from Corporations and Foundations who use it as a tax write off. Individual contributions are just a small portion of the overall budget but they have been rising as people are afraid Trump will cut fundin and leave many elderly people with nobody to bring them a meal.

MEALS ON WHEELS SAVES THE US 34 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR IN NURSING HOME COSTS BY KEEPING ELDERLY PEOPLE IN THEIR OWN HOMES.

QUOTE (AK Rich @ Mar 25 2017, 10:59 AM)

That would be incorrect. The majority of Federal funding may come from HHS but not the majority of their total funding. Where are you getting your info? It's simply not so. And at this point there have been no cuts announced for the OAA itself as far as I can tell.

The basic divide seems to be that myself and kris and Ken seem to think it's just not right to cut out what's left of the budget, after military spending and social security/etc. and slice it up even further and give it to the Pentagon. The bits that are being slices off are very small portions of the budget. Then again, that's what voting is for. After all, the folks in power and in both houses of congress have the ability to destroy all discretionary programs by defunding them and give all the money the pentagon. I think this is beyond the pale in terms of simple morality. Those programs are a miniscule slice of the budget and they go to help those who need it the most. I think we should take a HUGE slice out of the military budget personally. We overspend on the military by billions. The Military Industrial Complex has become a monster that sucks up about half of every tax dollar. To make it worse, the people we are fighting have no NAVY, no AIR FORCE, just guys with guns in light trucks and whatever they can steal from what we left behind. Spending billions on stealth jets and anti submarine warfare seems ludicrous. But again, just to me. Maybe you and others thing we need massive expansion of the military and to do away with social programs for the poor, disabled and aged. I think you would change your mind if you found yourself poor, disabled, an or aged.

As for the funding for Meals on Wheels, they get most of their state money from Community development block grants, a $3 billion program that started in the Ford administration to give states and cities more flexibility in how they combat poverty. If this get's cut, many programs that depend on it would simply go away. These are state level monies.

However, Meals on Wheels programs get most of their federal funding through the Administration for Community Living, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services that serves the elderly and disabled. That agency has a $227 million line-item for "home-delivered nutrition services." This represents the bulk of their federal funding.

Those programs are authorized though the Older Americans Act,

Still, they get the overall bulk of their funding from Corporations and Foundations who use it as a tax write off. Individual contributions are just a small portion of the overall budget but they have been rising as people are afraid Trump will cut fundin and leave many elderly people with nobody to bring them a meal.

MEALS ON WHEELS SAVES THE US 34 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR IN NURSING HOME COSTS BY KEEPING ELDERLY PEOPLE IN THEIR OWN HOMES.

I'll address the last paragraph in your post first. That is exactly what I have said and at first you seemed to dispute it , now you agree that the majority of their funding comes from donations. Corporations and Foundations as well as the general public who donate and do volunteer work represent the majority of the funding for MOW.

Now on to military spending. The first and foremost role of the Fed Gov is to "Provide For The Common Defense." Obama dramatically reduced funding to the military. Under Obama the production of most advanced fighter jet the world has ever seen, the F-22 Raptor was halted. Under Obama we saw in FY 2015 that spending on social and economic programs was over 4 times greater than the spending on national defense. Federal spending on national defense was less than 16% of federal spending in that year. If you look at the graph I have provided you can easily see the spending on social and economic programs has been the bulk of federal spending for quite some time.In 2010 America spent well over 3 times as much on transfer payments to individuals than it spent on the entire national security budget including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And over the next 4 years the entitlement spending was set to increase another $700 billion.

While Obama was gutting our military and bases where being shut down across the country we saw a buildup in the military of countries like China and Iran and we saw Russia walk all over Crimea and Ukraine. That's not quite as innocuous sounding as some guys in the desert with Ak-47's is it? If you watched the recent hearings with Comey and Rogers we saw at least one democrat (her name escapes me at the moment) claim that Russia's role in our election was an act of war. So maybe we need to worry about them too? Are Democrats going to bring us into a war with Russia because they are so butthurt over loosing an election that they thought was in the bag?

I think you might change your mind about military spending if this country is attacked while our defenses have been compromised for entitlements. Entitlements that if left to continue on the course they are on will consume all federal revenue.There is the possibility that you can kiss all those entitlements goodbye if these nations (Iran, China, Russia, N. Korea) and other nations decide they want to gang up on the US.

Well said Facts are facts despite what many Trumpers would want to believe. We already outspend the next dozen countries combined and he wants to kill meals on wheels? That's just evil. As for China and Russia, China owns most of our debt. I doubt seriously they want to fight us and weaken us to the point where we can't make our payments to them. I just don't buy it. As for Russia, they are a regional power at best. Not a super power. They can hack, they can spy, but direct conflict? Doubt it. Again, don't buy it. But that's just me Many Republicans and folks that love Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh (Ring Wing Nut Jobs to be honest) love to stoke fears in order to sell dried food to suckers. Check the Alex Jones site, tons of survival type gear for "preppers". They are selling fear, not reality.

Here is a chart of the 2016 proposed budget. Look at the military spending. Then look at the slivers left over for everything else. I'm voting for the next politician that wants to repair our country and stop wasting billions on a pointless arms race. We are on the same path that ROME was on. More and more spending on the military until finally, we just go broke trying to pay the interest on the loans. We are spending ourselves in to extinction via pointless military expansion.

QUOTE (Rammikin @ Mar 26 2017, 01:17 PM)

The US spends as much on military expenditures as the next dozen countries in the world combined. The US accounts for about a third of worldwide military spending.

Contrary to popular belief it is we, the grand old USofA that owns most of our debt. U.S. citizens and American entities, such as state and local governments, pension funds (including soc. sec.), mutual funds, and the Federal Reserve, domestic and private investors, etc. Together they (we) own the vast majority - 67.5% of the debt. Foreign nations only hold 32.5% of the total. Of that, China - about 1.24 trillion. Japan is at 1.15 (though they jockey back and forth - Japan led in Dec of 2016). Ireland of all places is in 3rd place with about 271 billion in held US debt and the UK in general has ALWAYS owned a ton of US debt. *UK and Canadian persons, entities and corporations have also always owned a lot of US real estate. Overall more than any other country historically.

Having substantial portions of our debt held by foreigners is cause for celebration. Todd is correct about this: just like globalization of the world's economy, it links the economic fates of nations together. In the history of mankind, there has never been a greater force for peace than having nations dependent on each other for economic prosperity.

My bad, I should have been more specific and said "FOREIGN DEBT". We own the bulk of our debt in it's entirety. The Chinese own a huge portion of our foreign debt, but you are right it's an important distinction.

QUOTE (klasaine @ Mar 26 2017, 07:25 PM)

Contrary to popular belief it is we, the grand old USofA that owns most of our debt. U.S. citizens and American entities, such as state and local governments, pension funds (including soc. sec.), mutual funds, and the Federal Reserve, domestic and private investors, etc. Together they (we) own the vast majority - 67.5% of the debt. Foreign nations only hold 32.5% of the total. Of that, China - about 1.24 trillion. Japan is at 1.15 (though they jockey back and forth - Japan led in Dec of 2016). Ireland of all places is in 3rd place with about 271 billion in held US debt and the UK in general has ALWAYS owned a ton of US debt. *UK and Canadian persons, entities and corporations have also always owned a lot of US real estate. Overall more than any other country historically.

Don't freak out about the debt - domestic or foreign.

Very articulate as per usual Makes me feel like my lack of eloquence is getting in the way of me making a clear point. I"ll have to work on it a bit. But yes, you nailed it precisely. It's a good way to keep the guns silent, as it were. Almost like royal houses marrying daughters and sons to create a bond and lasting peace, today we use debt in much the same way. As a stabilizing force. As a result of our external debt, it acts as a buffer against military action against us from State actors. No help against non state actors of course, but against the big threats, like China, it helps quite a bit. So spending billions on our military seems just pointless and cutting programs that help Americans who need it the most seems down right evil and self centered. It's goes against the very moral fiber of what it is to be an American IMHO. As a nation, we are not that self absorbed, at least I hope not. I would like to think that as a nation, we can agree to help those who really need it and do so on a grand scale. Not leave it to charity groups and hope for the best. That's just a huge cop out that gets spewn from the far far right IMHO.

Todd

QUOTE (Rammikin @ Mar 26 2017, 07:45 PM)

Having substantial portions of our debt held by foreigners is cause for celebration. Todd is correct about this: just like globalization of the world's economy, it links the economic fates of nations together. In the history of mankind, there has never been a greater force for peace than having nations dependent on each other for economic prosperity.